dittybopper:The sky won't fall, of course, because the US Constitution trumps any treaty in the US, but there are potential problems with it, mainly related to cost (we import most of that cheap ammo).

angry_scientist:Giltric: Trying to compare it to ill machined mom and pop manufacturers like a Stag or DPMS is kind of stupid.

Aww, DPMS is bad? They were on my potential list for a first build eventually. I've got DPMS, RRA and LMT all within an hour drive, was planning on some combination from each. Now to rethink!

It was suggested to me by two DPMS owners not to get one when I was getting my first AR15. I ended up with a DS Arms AR15. It has worked flawlessly. 3k+ rounds of mostly steel cased, not a single FTE/FTF, accurate, only ran me $700 (in 2010).

All great info, thanks. After finding my STG58 not as tinker friendly as I'd hoped, and still kinda expensive to feed! I think an AR platform may be just the ticket. The options and selection is just beautiful, like a .223 shooting lego

TheNewJesus:I live in a red state and I am surrounded by privileged tea-party assholes.

What sort of handgun do you guys suggest so that I can protect myself once these crazies decide to start "revoultion inc."

???

Handgun? Glock 17 with a whole lot of 33 round magazines. It shoots 9mm which is one of the more inexpensive rounds out there.

For home protection a sturdy 12 Guage pump shotgun is pretty effective. Load it with 00 buckshot.

Honestly though, if we are talking about home protection there are a number of things that can be done to deter someone from even entering before you get into a gunfight. Shooting is a last resort scenario.

demaL-demaL-yeH:dittybopper:The sky won't fall, of course, because the US Constitution trumps any treaty in the US, but there are potential problems with it, mainly related to cost (we import most of that cheap ammo).

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . ."There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. [Footnote 31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.

In other words, Constitution trumps all. Even if we signed a treaty making it illegal for civilians to own guns, *AND* the Senate ratified it, it would still be a nullity because of the Second Amendment.

All great info, thanks. After finding my STG58 not as tinker friendly as I'd hoped, and still kinda expensive to feed! I think an AR platform may be just the ticket. The options and selection is just beautiful, like a .223 shooting lego

If .223 itself becomes too costly to fire regularly, CMMG offers an inexpensive and easy to install bolt carrier replacement kit to convert the firearm to fire .22LR ammunition (total installation time is typically less than one minute). Cheaper Than Dirt also sells a.22LR AR-15 50-round drum magazine that actually works well and that is easy to load.

dittybopper:demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper:The sky won't fall, of course, because the US Constitution trumps any treaty in the US, but there are potential problems with it, mainly related to cost (we import most of that cheap ammo).

The Supremacy Clause says otherwise.

/Having an off day or just trolling.//Poked through without looking.

Nope:

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

From the actual decision:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . ."There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. [Footnote 31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.

In other words, Constitution trumps all. Even if we signed a treaty making it illegal for civilians to own guns, *AND* the Senate ratified it, it would still be a nullity because of the Second Amendment.

That case was about whether the protections of the Constitution apply to US citizens being tried by US authorities outside the territory of the United States. It was in direct response and clarification of the decision regarding the power of consular authorities to try US citizens in foreign countries. It was not about the applicability of duly ratified treaties freely entered into by the United States, which is why the United States has not ratified certain treaties in recent years.

demaL-demaL-yeH:That case was about whether the protections of the Constitution apply to US citizens being tried by US authorities outside the territory of the United States. It was in direct response and clarification of the decision regarding the power of consular authorities to try US citizens in foreign countries. It was not about the applicability of duly ratified treaties freely entered into by the United States, which is why the United States has not ratified certain treaties in recent years.

Let me quote the relevant part again:

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions."

That's a general principle, not a narrow holding on some particular set of facts.

And it could be no other way, either: Under your reading, a treaty ratified by the Senate could in theory dissolve the United States, which is patently ridiculous, and one of the hypotheticals considered in that case. Constitution trumps everything. Even ratified treaties.

dittybopper:PanicMan: dittybopper: After all, he has explicitly said he'd like to re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban, and make it permanent. It was even part of his platform in 2008. We're just taking him at his word.

All I heard him say this election is that he'd see if it was possible. And it's not possible. He doesn't have the votes. This would be filibustered and challenged in the courts.

This election wasn't about legislation. It was about the Supreme Court. Heller and McDonald were both decided by bare 5 to 4 majorities.

And the most recent SCOTUS justices lied to the Senate about supporting existing gun cases. They wanted to throw Heller out during McDonald.

I live in an apartment building. No room, and my landlords would probably be pretty pissed.

You don't have room for a Lee Loader?

[www.titanreloading.com image 413x450]

Must be a very small apartment.

I am considering installation of a small table in the corner of my bedroom for setup of a reloading station. I do not know how easily I will be able to cast bullets, however, should I choose to do so.

I could probably make or find room for a small station, but again my landlords would probably be pretty pissed.

None of their business. How would they really know? Put the stuff in a desk drawer when not using it (you can C-clamp a press to the desk when using it, unless you go whole-hog and get a progressive). Landlord wouldn't find out. Not that it's anything illegal anyway.

dittybopper:demaL-demaL-yeH: That case was about whether the protections of the Constitution apply to US citizens being tried by US authorities outside the territory of the United States. It was in direct response and clarification of the decision regarding the power of consular authorities to try US citizens in foreign countries. It was not about the applicability of duly ratified treaties freely entered into by the United States, which is why the United States has not ratified certain treaties in recent years.

Let me quote the relevant part again:

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions."

That's a general principle, not a narrow holding on some particular set of facts.

And it could be no other way, either: Under your reading, a treaty ratified by the Senate could in theory dissolve the United States, which is patently ridiculous, and one of the hypotheticals considered in that case. Constitution trumps everything. Even ratified treaties.

No, it was narrowly directed at the government's argument that her rights under the Constitution were waived by the treaty due to extraterritoriality. it directly affected two murder cases where insanity was claimed by the defendants but disallowed by the Court Martial.

I live in an apartment building. No room, and my landlords would probably be pretty pissed.

You don't have room for a Lee Loader?

[www.titanreloading.com image 413x450]

Must be a very small apartment.

I am considering installation of a small table in the corner of my bedroom for setup of a reloading station. I do not know how easily I will be able to cast bullets, however, should I choose to do so.

I could probably make or find room for a small station, but again my landlords would probably be pretty pissed.

You seem to think there is something particularly dangerous about reloading. There are probably more dangerous items under youur sink than a cannister of smokeless powder and a few hundred primers. Modren smokeless powder burns, it doesn't explode and it is not terribly sensitive to shock or friction. Don't reload by candle light or burn incense on your reloading table. Primers will go off if you hit them solidly or maybe if you step on one on a tile floor but they are about as loud as a cap pistol (if you are old enough to remember what one sounded like before the far left PC crowd banned them). If your landlord is an extreme anti-gun nut he would be pissed if he found out you owned a gun to reload ammunition for in the first place. Move someplace that respects your rights.

Funny thing is that Barry would totally do it if he could get the votes in either house of congress. Romney would have held it out as a bargaining chip. Not happening when the reps just have to close ranks and it stops literally anything, and they will do it just to score political points. Gridlock is awesome, and kinda the whole point of the checks and balances system. When the man said "government is best that which governs least" what he meant is that if we hold popularity contests(elections) to weed out the sociopaths from any given population and send them all into one town and turn them all all against eachother, they won't have time to hurt anyone.

Seems to work perfectly for about a century or so, and then things start getting piled up and they can't be undone because the system is based on the idea of retarding anything getting done at all.

China White Tea:Please, no real American would use an AK-47. That's a marxist weapon.

Why not? It's actually American in origin. Gospodin Kalashnikov cribbed very heavily from our Lord and Savior John Moses Browning. The AK is essentially a Remington Model 8 Police, converted from long recoil action to gas, and to an intermediate cartridge.